Spinoculating against the Spindustrial Revolution

The CBC veteran Ira Basen has been running a brilliant series all about the world of PR spin. As regular readers of DeSmog know, our site is all about debunking the “spin” around the issue of global warming. If you want to get a good crash course in the practice of spin, this is the series to listen to.

Rumour has is that DeSmog's founder Jim Hoggan will be featured in the upcoming installment.

Think of it as spinoculation.

Here's the links to this 4 parts of this in-depth analysis of spin:

Episode 1:The Origins of SpinHow spin began. The rocky relationship between the press and public relations is now 100 years old.

Episode 2:The Spindustrial RevolutionCountless “spindustries” have been spawned by our modern spin culture, including public relations, “earned media” and video news releases.

Episode 4:The Spin Doctor is InTwenty-four-hour TV news, increased competition in newspapers, the shrinking news cycle … they've all played a part in changing the way Canadian politics is covered. And in most cases, it's the spin doctors who have gained the upper hand.

Comments

is actually the purpose and practice of desmogblog. Consider e.g. your frequent smear campaigns against anybody opposed to the IPCC take on climate change. You describe opponents as corrupt (on the payroll of big oil), dishonest, and, most of all, “climate change deniers”. The latter is especially ugly as you deliberately associate your opponents with holocaust denial and flat earth type stupidity. You have certainly reached the level of Premier Spin Doctoring!

“It’s a matter of following the money. Every climate scientist I’ve ever come across so far that says global warming’s not happening, or that it’s not caused by excess CO2 from human activity, is funded by Exxon or some other company that sells CO2-producing energy sources. Doesn’t that seem rather suspicious to you?
If all the scientists saying that global warming is a real crisis were funded by some trillion dollar solar panel conglomerate I’d have to wonder.”

I hate having to argue this mostly because I feel the same about what you say but there are a couple handfulls of scientists not “on the take” from big oil that dispute human caused, or the degree of human influence. You can find the list here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_global_warming_consensus

Pity poor Wikipedia when industry flacks like Tom Harris can post lists like this, and then people like “Anon” here believe the content. It is even worse to assume - or to argue - that none of the scientists on this list are “on the take” from big oil. The list includes people like Fred Singer, who has been taking money from industry ever since he started denying the health risks of second-hand smoke.

Which I fear is a perfect description of your input here, Anon: second-hand smoke.

Seriously. You denier defenders pull out the same two or three sad counter arguments evertime. The worst is this allusion to the holocaust. Its a red herring and the last time I checked it is you and your ilk that continue to make this numb brained comparison. You are your own worst enemy. Face it. Its over. .

umm, I think you have it wrong, since it is not the ‘denier defenders’ who make the allusion. If they had any sensibilities, anybody defending a claim that climate change isn’t happening would not liken themselves to holocaust deniers.

“As regular readers of DeSmog know, our site is all about debunking the “spin” around the issue of global warming. If you want to get a good crash course in the practice of spin …”

… then read this “blog”.

The statements made in this article are so brazenly shameless, you just have to laugh.

This fake “blog” is run by a PR firm hired by David Suzuki. If the supposed “scientific consensus” is supporting the conclusions of the Global Warm Mongers – then WHYWOULDYOUNEEDTOPAYPRFLACKSTORUN A WEBSITELIKETHIS?

“I really don’t understand all the hoax and conspiracy theories from the right on this. So what if we move toward cheaper and less polluting sources of energy and fuel? How is that a bad thing for anyone except corporations who sell expensive and polluting energy and fuel sources?”

What “cheaper” sources of energy? If there are “cheaper” sources out there, we’d be using them, obviously. But then, this clearly illustrates the typical leftist-disguised-as-environmentalist level of thinking.

Or are you implying that a conspiracy led by “corporations who sell expensive and polluting energy and fuel sources” is denying us these mysterious “cheaper” forms of energy.

Now what was that you were saying about the “right” and conspiracy theories? I think you’ll find the opposite is the case.

Big deal. Suzuki doesn’t dictate what Hoggan et al. can say or do. Hoggan et al. can say what they wish and are not “tied down”.

(This is not to disrespect Suzuki. I respect him very much and agree with most of what he says. This was only to say that Hoggan et al. have the freedom to say what they think is necessary. Also, Suzuki wouldn’t tell Hoggan et al. what to say. Hoggan et al. tell it like it is anyway.)

Anon, you're looking exactly backwards. Jim Hoggan, who frounded this site and helps finance it also VOLUNTEERS his own and the agency's time to Suzuki. They didn't hire us to do this. Jim's doing it because, like volunteering on the Suzuki board, he thinks it's the right thing to do.

Anon, since when has showing what someone has said to be untruthful and not based on facts (scientific facts are some of the most stringent facts around) is equivalent to smearing?

It is those very same people who distort the science facts who are guilty of smearing. As your mother should have told you, lies are dishonest and should not be told by little boys, especially little boys playing on blogs about things they know very little about.

"Fossil-fuel companies have spent millions funding anti-global-warming think tanks, purposely creating a climate of doubt around the science. DeSmogBlog is the antidote to that obfuscation." ~ BRYAN WALSH, TIME MAGAZINE